A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Bruce Richmond on 13 Mar 2010 02:37 On Mar 12, 10:56 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 12, 9:02 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 11, 7:42 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 10, 11:30 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 10, 9:18 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 10, 8:45 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 10, 8:10 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mar 10, 7:45 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mar 10, 9:36 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 10, 8:05 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message > > > > > > > > > > >news:4b970c19$0$8039$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > > > > > > > > > > > > I know I still have a long way to go but my goal here is to truely > > > > > > > > > > > understand SR, not to just parrot explainations. LET helped me see > > > > > > > > > > > that the math of SR is correct, but I also realize it has become a > > > > > > > > > > > hiderence in understanding SR. > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > > Good. There is one key insight which makes the jump from LET to SR a > > > > > > > > > > > little easier (in my opinion). > > > > > > > > > > > > For all the talk of relative motion against the ether in LET, the > > > > > > > > > > > equations work out exactly the same whatever you choose as the rest frame > > > > > > > > > > > of the ether. So the actual rest frame of the ether cannot be detected > > > > > > > > > > > within LET. > > > > > > > > > > > That's right. That's what Dono doesn't get. > > > > > > > > > > > > Its only a small hop, skip and jump from saying that "it cannot be > > > > > > > > > > > detected" to "it doesn't exist". > > > > > > > > > > > Or at least 'it doesn't matter'. > > > > > > > > > > > Once you go beyond just the aether frame, and relating frames directly to > > > > > > > > > > it, LET becomes more of a hinderance than a help > > > > > > > > > > > LET tells you (for instance) that even though objects at rest in frame A may > > > > > > > > > > be more length compressed and time slowed than those in frame B (where A > > > > > > > > > > moves faster in the aether frame than B) .. yet A will see objects at rest > > > > > > > > > > in B as being more contracted and time dilated than its own. Which really > > > > > > > > > > confuses those who use the simple 'motion in the aether shrinks and slows > > > > > > > > > > things' idea of LET as a way to 'understand' into a spin. You end up with a > > > > > > > > > > strange combination of real compression and apparent contraction, real > > > > > > > > > > slowing and apparent time dilaton. Its not really helpful :):) > > > > > > > > > > It is helpful in that it gets 'us' closer to understanding what occurs > > > > > > > > > to objects as they move with respect to the aether. > > > > > > > > > > The issue with LET is everything is relative. > > > > > > > > > > For example, "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by > > > > > > > > > connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring > > > > > > > > > places" - Albert Einstein. > > > > > > > > > You like Einstein quotes about the ether so try this one: > > > > > > > > >http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > > > > > > > > > "We may assume the existence of an ether; only we must give up > > > > > > > > ascribing a definite state of motion to it" - Albert Einstein. > > > > > > > > "If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the > > > > > > > particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics - if, > > > > > > > in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the > > > > > > > space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no > > > > > > > ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles. > > > > > > > But all the same we could characterise it as a medium." > > > > > > > > "[extended physical objects to which the idea of motion cannot be > > > > > > > applied] may not be thought of as consisting of particles which allow > > > > > > > themselves to be separately tracked through time." > > > > > > > > "The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to > > > > > > > consist of particles observable through time, but the hypothesis of > > > > > > > ether in itself is not in conflict with the special theory of > > > > > > > relativity. Only we must be on our guard against ascribing a state of > > > > > > > motion to the ether." > > > > > > > > "But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality > > > > > > > characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may > > > > > > > be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it." > > > > > > > > Once you are willing to understand how Einstein defined motion, as > > > > > > > particles which can be separately tracked through time, maybe you can > > > > > > > advance from your statement. > > > > > > > > p.s. You still haven't answered how it is the train is length > > > > > > > contacted because it is moving relative to the aether and the > > > > > > > embankment is more at rest with respect to the embankment but at the > > > > > > > same time LET has everything being relative. The answer is both the > > > > > > > Observer at M and the Observer at M' will determine the train to be > > > > > > > length contracted and for the clocks on the train to be ticking slower > > > > > > > than the clocks on the embankment. > > > > > > > > > > This means the aether is more at rest with > > > > > > > > > respect to the embankment than it is with respect to the train. The > > > > > > > > > train is moving relative to the aether so it will be length contracted > > > > > > > > > while the embankment will not. The ruler the Observer on the > > > > > > > > > embankment uses to measure the length of the train is not length > > > > > > > > > contracted. The ruler the Observer on the train uses to measure the > > > > > > > > > length of the embankment is length contracted. The Observer on the > > > > > > > > > embankment and the Observer on the train conclude the embankment is > > > > > > > > > longer than the train. > > > > > > > > > > The same holds true for the clocks on the train and on the embankment. > > > > > > > > > Since the train is moving relative to the aether while the embankment > > > > > > > > > is more at rest with respect to the aether there will be a greater > > > > > > > > > pressure associated with the aether on the clock on the train causing > > > > > > > > > it to tick slower. If the Observers on the embankment and on the train > > > > > > > > > where able to 'see' each others clocks as the M and M' pass each other > > > > > > > > > both the Observer on the train and the Observer on the embankment > > > > > > > > > would conclude the clock on the train ticks slower than the clock on > > > > > > > > > the embankment. > > > > > > > You know for a while you were making progress. (I'm sure some here > > > > > > are thinking the same about me ;) You managed to get away from each > > > > > > frame having its own ether to having them share a single ether (for EM > > > > > > waves anyway). Now if you could just get away from trying to attach > > > > > > one of the frames to the ether... > > > > > > > Did you ever get anywhere with that diagram I made to explain RoS to > > > > > > you. Einstein presented the train experiment from the point of view > > > > > > of the tracks, but he never said that the tracks were at rest WRT the > > > > > > ether. > > > > > > > - Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > According to both SR and LET there is no experiment that can reveal > > > > > > > > which frame is at rest WRT the ether, so there is no way to know which > > > > > > > > frame is more at rest WRT the ether. > > > > > > > > The clock which ticks the fastest is most at rest with respect to the > > > > > > > aether. > > > > > > > But you have no way of knowing which clock is ticking faster. To > > > > > > measure the tick rate of a moving clock requires more than one clock > > > > > > at rest. And then you end up making assumptions to sychronize them. > > > > > > Those assumptions affect your measurements. > > > > > > The two clocks are synchronized at some point in time. Then the clock > > > > > at M and the clock at M' travel past one another. The Observer on the > > > > > train and the Observer on the embankment have enough time to determine > > > > > which clock is ticking faster. The clock which is ticking faster when > > > > > M and M pass each other is the clock most at rest with respect to the > > > > > aether.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > You need at least one more clock to measure a tic rate. Given clock > > > > B, you compare the time on clock M to that on clock M' when they > > > > pass. You cannot compare them a second time because M' is moving.. So > > > > you compare M' to B when they pass. With that comparison you can > > > > decide whether the clock at M' has gained or lost time, but that > > > > calculation assumes the clocks at M and B read the same. And > > > > assumptions were required when those clocks were synchronized. > > > > Why can't you measure the clocks at M and M' a second time?- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > M'-----> > > M > > > M'-----> > > M > > > If M' just went by M when do you think they are going to be facing > > each other a second time? > > T1: > > M'--------> > -\ > --\ > ---\ > ----\ > -----M > > T2: > > -----M'--------> > -----| > -----| > -----| > -----| > -----M > > T3: > > ----------M'--------> > ---------/ > --------/ > -------/ > ------/ > -----M > > There is no difference between the clocks being directly across from > each other and one clock approaching, and then being directly across > from, and then moving past the other clock.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - If they are not directly across from each other you are making assumptions about the speed of light carrying the signal. If you use two clocks you made assumptions about the speed of light when you synchronized the two clocks.
From: mpc755 on 13 Mar 2010 02:42 On Mar 13, 2:16 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mar 12, 11:11 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 13, 2:07 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 12, 11:00 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 13, 1:53 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 12, 10:46 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 13, 1:19 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mar 12, 7:56 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > T1: > > > > > > > > > M'--------> > > > > > > > > -\ > > > > > > > > --\ > > > > > > > > ---\ > > > > > > > > ----\ > > > > > > > > -----M > > > > > > > > > T2: > > > > > > > > > -----M'--------> > > > > > > > > -----| > > > > > > > > -----| > > > > > > > > -----| > > > > > > > > -----| > > > > > > > > -----M > > > > > > > > > T3: > > > > > > > > > ----------M'--------> > > > > > > > > ---------/ > > > > > > > > --------/ > > > > > > > > -------/ > > > > > > > > ------/ > > > > > > > > -----M > > > > > > > > > There is no difference between the clocks being directly across from > > > > > > > > each other and one clock approaching, and then being directly across > > > > > > > > from, and then moving past the other clock.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > If two ships flow through space at near light speed next to each other > > > > > > > light will be left behind as it has to travel accross space to the > > > > > > > next ship. Each will see the other ship slightly behind because light > > > > > > > gets left behind in space. > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > Light travels at 'c' with respect to the aether. It might be more > > > > > > informative to discuss the light from lightning strikes on the train > > > > > > at A' and B' and on the embankment at A and B. Let's assume the train > > > > > > is full of flat bed cars and the lightning strikes occur above the > > > > > > flat bed cars on the train at A' and B'. Let's also assume the > > > > > > lightning strike occur above A and B on the embankment. > > > > > > > "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections > > > > > > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places"- > > > > > > Albert Einstein > > > > > > > This means the aether is more at rest with respect to the embankment > > > > > > than the aether is at rest with respect to the train. The light > > > > > > travels from A and B to M and the light travels from A and B to where > > > > > > M' is when the light reaches M'. The light travels from where A' and > > > > > > B' were with respect to the Earth at the time of the lighting strikes > > > > > > to M'. Measuring to A' and B' on the train in order to determine how > > > > > > far the light travels to M' does not accurately reflect how far the > > > > > > light traveled in nature from the lightning strikes at A' and B' to > > > > > > M'. A' and B' have moved with respect to the aether between the time > > > > > > of the lightning strikes and the time the light reaches M'.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > Light flows through space pushed by time. Space has its own aether > > > > > that is the main "push" to matter behind all of physics. The strength > > > > > of gravity does not require this aether to push. Since space flow push > > > > > is what God is doing in physics. The rest of the pushes are from > > > > > space's aether. > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > 'Time' is not a physical force capable of 'pushing'. Time is a > > > > concept. The rate at which a clock 'ticks' has nothing to do with > > > > time. The pressure associated with the aether determines the rate at > > > > which a clock ticks.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Time is a physical thing otherwise it wouldn't be in physics. Its > > > order is most important. You cannot exclude the most important mpc. > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > I am explaining what physically occurs in nature in order to cause > > atomic clocks to tick at different rates. An atomic clock ticks based > > upon the aether pressure in which it exists.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > You are dismissed for not seeing that time and its slowing are real. > I suppose you are looking for a hole in the wall? > > Mitch Raemsch The rate at which an atomic clock ticks has nothing to do with time. Take the twins paradox for example. One twin fires off in a space ship. The space ship is traveling fast enough that the pressure associated with the aether is greater on the clock on the space ship then it is on the clock which remains on the Earth. The clock in the space ship 'ticks' slower. Let's say after ten years the twin in the space ship arrives back on the Earth. As far as the twin who remained on the Earth is concerned ten years have passed and it is March 2020. As far as the twin on the space ship is concerned nine years have passed and it is March 2019. Is the twin who left and returned on the space ship going to insist it is March 2019 and convince all of the people on the Earth it is March 2019, or is the twin who left and returned on the space ship going to decide it is March 2020? The twin who left and returned on the space ship is going to change the date on their calendar. Time is a concept. If you have a battery operated clock and it starts to tick slower has time changed, or do you replace the batteries? You replace the batteries because you understand what is physically occurring in nature to cause your clock to tick slower. The twins will set their clocks to tick at the same rate by determining the aether pressure in which both clocks will exist. Since both twins understand it is the associated aether pressure which physically occurs in nature to cause the atom in the atomic clocks to oscillate at different rates the twins will set their clocks to tick accordingly. The twins understand it is the pressure associated with motion with respect to the aether and the pressure associated with the aether displaced by massive objects (gravity) which causes the atom to oscillate at a certain rate. When the twin in the space ship returns both the clock on the space ship and the clock which remains on the Earth will state the same time.
From: mpc755 on 13 Mar 2010 02:49 On Mar 13, 2:37 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > T1: > > > M'--------> > > -\ > > --\ > > ---\ > > ----\ > > -----M > > > T2: > > > -----M'--------> > > -----| > > -----| > > -----| > > -----| > > -----M > > > T3: > > > ----------M'--------> > > ---------/ > > --------/ > > -------/ > > ------/ > > -----M > > > There is no difference between the clocks being directly across from > > each other and one clock approaching, and then being directly across > > from, and then moving past the other clock.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > If they are not directly across from each other you are making > assumptions about the speed of light carrying the signal. If you use > two clocks you made assumptions about the speed of light when you > synchronized the two clocks. Light travels at 'c' with respect to the aether. The Observers get together prior to performing the experiment and notice their clocks tick at the same rate. Let's put some time on the clocks: T1: M'(12:00)--------> -\ --\ ---\ ----\ -----M(12:00) T2: -----M'(12:01)--------> -----| -----| -----| -----| -----M(12:02) T3: ----------M'(12:02)--------> ---------/ --------/ -------/ ------/ -----M(12:04) The Observers get together after the above occurs and notice both clocks are once again 'ticking' at the same rate. Both Observers conclude the clock on the train 'ticked' slower then the clock on the embankment as the clocks passed one another.
From: Inertial on 13 Mar 2010 03:19 "Bruce Richmond" <bsr3997(a)my-deja.com> wrote in message news:a7f0a513-521d-4b37-a746-104e419dd704(a)g4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 12, 10:56 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mar 12, 9:02 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Mar 11, 7:42 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > On Mar 10, 11:30 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: >> >> > > > On Mar 10, 9:18 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > > On Mar 10, 8:45 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: >> >> > > > > > On Mar 10, 8:10 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > > > > On Mar 10, 7:45 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> >> > > > > > > wrote: >> >> > > > > > > > On Mar 10, 9:36 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > > > > > > On Mar 10, 8:05 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> >> > > > > > > > > wrote: >> >> > > > > > > > > > "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote in message >> >> > > > > > > > > >news:4b970c19$0$8039$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... >> >> > > > > > > > > > > I know I still have a long way to go but my goal here >> > > > > > > > > > > is to truely >> > > > > > > > > > > understand SR, not to just parrot explainations. LET >> > > > > > > > > > > helped me see >> > > > > > > > > > > that the math of SR is correct, but I also realize it >> > > > > > > > > > > has become a >> > > > > > > > > > > hiderence in understanding SR. >> >> > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ >> > > > > > > > > > > Good. There is one key insight which makes the jump >> > > > > > > > > > > from LET to SR a >> > > > > > > > > > > little easier (in my opinion). >> >> > > > > > > > > > > For all the talk of relative motion against the ether >> > > > > > > > > > > in LET, the >> > > > > > > > > > > equations work out exactly the same whatever you >> > > > > > > > > > > choose as the rest frame >> > > > > > > > > > > of the ether. So the actual rest frame of the ether >> > > > > > > > > > > cannot be detected >> > > > > > > > > > > within LET. >> >> > > > > > > > > > That's right. That's what Dono doesn't get. >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Its only a small hop, skip and jump from saying that >> > > > > > > > > > > "it cannot be >> > > > > > > > > > > detected" to "it doesn't exist". >> >> > > > > > > > > > Or at least 'it doesn't matter'. >> >> > > > > > > > > > Once you go beyond just the aether frame, and relating >> > > > > > > > > > frames directly to >> > > > > > > > > > it, LET becomes more of a hinderance than a help >> >> > > > > > > > > > LET tells you (for instance) that even though objects >> > > > > > > > > > at rest in frame A may >> > > > > > > > > > be more length compressed and time slowed than those in >> > > > > > > > > > frame B (where A >> > > > > > > > > > moves faster in the aether frame than B) .. yet A will >> > > > > > > > > > see objects at rest >> > > > > > > > > > in B as being more contracted and time dilated than its >> > > > > > > > > > own. Which really >> > > > > > > > > > confuses those who use the simple 'motion in the aether >> > > > > > > > > > shrinks and slows >> > > > > > > > > > things' idea of LET as a way to 'understand' into a >> > > > > > > > > > spin. You end up with a >> > > > > > > > > > strange combination of real compression and apparent >> > > > > > > > > > contraction, real >> > > > > > > > > > slowing and apparent time dilaton. Its not really >> > > > > > > > > > helpful :):) >> >> > > > > > > > > It is helpful in that it gets 'us' closer to >> > > > > > > > > understanding what occurs >> > > > > > > > > to objects as they move with respect to the aether. >> >> > > > > > > > > The issue with LET is everything is relative. >> >> > > > > > > > > For example, "the state of the [ether] is at every place >> > > > > > > > > determined by >> > > > > > > > > connections with the matter and the state of the ether in >> > > > > > > > > neighbouring >> > > > > > > > > places" - Albert Einstein. >> >> > > > > > > > You like Einstein quotes about the ether so try this one: >> >> > > > > > > >http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html >> >> > > > > > > > "We may assume the existence of an ether; only we must give >> > > > > > > > up >> > > > > > > > ascribing a definite state of motion to it" - Albert >> > > > > > > > Einstein. >> >> > > > > > > "If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of >> > > > > > > the >> > > > > > > particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in >> > > > > > > physics - if, >> > > > > > > in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape >> > > > > > > of the >> > > > > > > space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should >> > > > > > > have no >> > > > > > > ground for the assumption that water consists of movable >> > > > > > > particles. >> > > > > > > But all the same we could characterise it as a medium." >> >> > > > > > > "[extended physical objects to which the idea of motion >> > > > > > > cannot be >> > > > > > > applied] may not be thought of as consisting of particles >> > > > > > > which allow >> > > > > > > themselves to be separately tracked through time." >> >> > > > > > > "The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the >> > > > > > > ether to >> > > > > > > consist of particles observable through time, but the >> > > > > > > hypothesis of >> > > > > > > ether in itself is not in conflict with the special theory of >> > > > > > > relativity. Only we must be on our guard against ascribing a >> > > > > > > state of >> > > > > > > motion to the ether." >> >> > > > > > > "But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the >> > > > > > > quality >> > > > > > > characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts >> > > > > > > which may >> > > > > > > be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be >> > > > > > > applied to it." >> >> > > > > > > Once you are willing to understand how Einstein defined >> > > > > > > motion, as >> > > > > > > particles which can be separately tracked through time, maybe >> > > > > > > you can >> > > > > > > advance from your statement. >> >> > > > > > > p.s. You still haven't answered how it is the train is length >> > > > > > > contacted because it is moving relative to the aether and the >> > > > > > > embankment is more at rest with respect to the embankment but >> > > > > > > at the >> > > > > > > same time LET has everything being relative. The answer is >> > > > > > > both the >> > > > > > > Observer at M and the Observer at M' will determine the train >> > > > > > > to be >> > > > > > > length contracted and for the clocks on the train to be >> > > > > > > ticking slower >> > > > > > > than the clocks on the embankment. >> >> > > > > > > > > This means the aether is more at rest with >> > > > > > > > > respect to the embankment than it is with respect to the >> > > > > > > > > train. The >> > > > > > > > > train is moving relative to the aether so it will be >> > > > > > > > > length contracted >> > > > > > > > > while the embankment will not. The ruler the Observer on >> > > > > > > > > the >> > > > > > > > > embankment uses to measure the length of the train is not >> > > > > > > > > length >> > > > > > > > > contracted. The ruler the Observer on the train uses to >> > > > > > > > > measure the >> > > > > > > > > length of the embankment is length contracted. The >> > > > > > > > > Observer on the >> > > > > > > > > embankment and the Observer on the train conclude the >> > > > > > > > > embankment is >> > > > > > > > > longer than the train. >> >> > > > > > > > > The same holds true for the clocks on the train and on >> > > > > > > > > the embankment. >> > > > > > > > > Since the train is moving relative to the aether while >> > > > > > > > > the embankment >> > > > > > > > > is more at rest with respect to the aether there will be >> > > > > > > > > a greater >> > > > > > > > > pressure associated with the aether on the clock on the >> > > > > > > > > train causing >> > > > > > > > > it to tick slower. If the Observers on the embankment and >> > > > > > > > > on the train >> > > > > > > > > where able to 'see' each others clocks as the M and M' >> > > > > > > > > pass each other >> > > > > > > > > both the Observer on the train and the Observer on the >> > > > > > > > > embankment >> > > > > > > > > would conclude the clock on the train ticks slower than >> > > > > > > > > the clock on >> > > > > > > > > the embankment. >> >> > > > > > You know for a while you were making progress. (I'm sure some >> > > > > > here >> > > > > > are thinking the same about me ;) You managed to get away from >> > > > > > each >> > > > > > frame having its own ether to having them share a single ether >> > > > > > (for EM >> > > > > > waves anyway). Now if you could just get away from trying to >> > > > > > attach >> > > > > > one of the frames to the ether... >> >> > > > > > Did you ever get anywhere with that diagram I made to explain >> > > > > > RoS to >> > > > > > you. Einstein presented the train experiment from the point of >> > > > > > view >> > > > > > of the tracks, but he never said that the tracks were at rest >> > > > > > WRT the >> > > > > > ether. >> >> > > > > > - Hide quoted text - >> >> > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - >> >> > > > > > > > According to both SR and LET there is no experiment that >> > > > > > > > can reveal >> > > > > > > > which frame is at rest WRT the ether, so there is no way to >> > > > > > > > know which >> > > > > > > > frame is more at rest WRT the ether. >> >> > > > > > > The clock which ticks the fastest is most at rest with >> > > > > > > respect to the >> > > > > > > aether. >> >> > > > > > But you have no way of knowing which clock is ticking faster. >> > > > > > To >> > > > > > measure the tick rate of a moving clock requires more than one >> > > > > > clock >> > > > > > at rest. And then you end up making assumptions to sychronize >> > > > > > them. >> > > > > > Those assumptions affect your measurements. >> >> > > > > The two clocks are synchronized at some point in time. Then the >> > > > > clock >> > > > > at M and the clock at M' travel past one another. The Observer on >> > > > > the >> > > > > train and the Observer on the embankment have enough time to >> > > > > determine >> > > > > which clock is ticking faster. The clock which is ticking faster >> > > > > when >> > > > > M and M pass each other is the clock most at rest with respect to >> > > > > the >> > > > > aether.- Hide quoted text - >> >> > > > > - Show quoted text - >> >> > > > You need at least one more clock to measure a tic rate. Given >> > > > clock >> > > > B, you compare the time on clock M to that on clock M' when they >> > > > pass. You cannot compare them a second time because M' is moving. >> > > > So >> > > > you compare M' to B when they pass. With that comparison you can >> > > > decide whether the clock at M' has gained or lost time, but that >> > > > calculation assumes the clocks at M and B read the same. And >> > > > assumptions were required when those clocks were synchronized. >> >> > > Why can't you measure the clocks at M and M' a second time?- Hide >> > > quoted text - >> >> > > - Show quoted text - >> >> > M'-----> >> > M >> >> > M'-----> >> > M >> >> > If M' just went by M when do you think they are going to be facing >> > each other a second time? >> >> T1: >> >> M'--------> >> -\ >> --\ >> ---\ >> ----\ >> -----M >> >> T2: >> >> -----M'--------> >> -----| >> -----| >> -----| >> -----| >> -----M >> >> T3: >> >> ----------M'--------> >> ---------/ >> --------/ >> -------/ >> ------/ >> -----M >> >> There is no difference between the clocks being directly across from >> each other and one clock approaching, and then being directly across >> from, and then moving past the other clock.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > If they are not directly across from each other you are making > assumptions about the speed of light carrying the signal. If you use > two clocks you made assumptions about the speed of light when you > synchronized the two clocks. Yeup. Namely that it takes the same time to travel the same distance.
From: Peter Webb on 13 Mar 2010 03:30
If they are not directly across from each other you are making assumptions about the speed of light carrying the signal. If you use two clocks you made assumptions about the speed of light when you synchronized the two clocks. _____________________________ When solving problems in SR or LET, you don't have to assume the speed of light is constant. You know it is. |